Martin Salter and Mark Lloyd fail to deliver again

[Brian Carragher]

You've challenged him to a debate and I assume from that, Martin Salter would think it were to between you and him. Now you seem to want to widen it without any reference back to him, why do you just assume he'll go along with that

 

If this is your format: There needs to be a debating panel comprising 4 representatives, Canoe England (??), Angling Trust (Salter), Recreational Sea Anglers (??) and Independent (me).[/b why would he want to attend

 

After all you're hardly seen as an independant after your highly publicised canoe trips on You Tube and missives on various forums regarding canoe access on rivers, if you're looking for support on here from anglers who are prepared to give away their rights of access to a river they've paid for then I think you're barking up the wrong tree

[andy_youngs]

Are you serious Brian? Are you going to allow me to argue my case or not? I didn't challenge Salter to a debate, he challenged me. That man is an ex-MP and director of the Angling Trust. What do you expect me to do?

 

I'm independent in so far as I am not a member of either the Angling Trust or Canoe England. Are You? Why do you feel so threatened by me? Would you rather I stopped posting so that AN members could receive a convenient, sanatised version of reality?

Edited December 31, 2011 by andy_youngs

[Brian Carragher]

I am being serious Andy and I would'nt support you in your endevours to give away rights that others have paid for and continue to pay for

 

As for being threatened or feeling threatened, you need to give yourself a shake, I feel more threatened by a cold 99 ice cream in winter than I do by either you or your efforts

 

What surprises me more is that more posters on here have'nt told you the same

[andy_youngs]

Why do you find 99 ice creams threatening? what surprises me is that the posters on here haven't yet told you to shut up.

[barry luxton]

Hello Brian, happy new year mate, roll on the conger season..

 

 

Just hope this one don't get shut for going too personal Andy. Get it back on track mate.

[Phone]

Andy,

 

Well, I suppose 64 posts is a debate of sorts. I can't see anyone out of place other than you. The boys have left the ball in your court but it's not your ball. Play nice! Certainly you can make your point (again and again) but don't whine or make it a personal. Surely there's something better to say than "shut-up!"? when they have a different view.

 

BTW who does pay?

 

Phone

[andy_youngs]

Hmm, Brian, I have no desire to get myself banned. But I don't understand why you're so sensitive to public debate.

It's as if posting a public opinion about canoeing rights is tantamount to heracy if doesn't fit neatly into Angling Trust policy.

Edited January 1, 2012 by andy_youngs

[Bob Shotter]

New year greetings one and all.

 

Pardon me for asking I’m a sea angler and Martin Salter is a huge threat to that make no mistake, as for this debate can we be clear about how that came about without having to troll through the post on another site? What is the purpose of it? What does Martin want to defend by laying down the challenge?

 

If we are talking canoe access to fresh water areas were anglers pay to fish then yep Andy I reckon you have a problem, if we are talking tidal marine were the resource is open to all then you have less of a problem as far as the rights of access go but can’t see how this alone being worthy of a debate.

 

When the Angling Trust comes into the equation and with Martin now on the board, who and how are the decisions made, is it down to the MD, The Board, or the members knowing that might help.

 

Some clarity Andy if you please.

[andy_youngs]

as for this debate can we be clear about how that came about without having to troll through the post on another site? What is the purpose of it? What does Martin want to defend by laying down the challenge?

I don't know Bob, I think it was a daft thing to do. If you want to know why he did it then I suggest you ask him, not me. However having laid down the challenge, then I think it is only reasonable to expect the procedings to be conducted fairly and properly. Barry is absolutely spot in suggesting that conducting the debate at the Angling Trust AGM would be pointless and tasteless exercise designed purely to humiliate the main protagonist (me)

 

If we are talking canoe access to fresh water areas were anglers pay to fish then yep Andy I reckon you have a problem, if we are talking tidal marine were the resource is open to all then you have less of a problem as far as the rights of access go but can’t see how this alone being worthy of a debate.

Bob, navigation to inland waterways is one of the most contentious issues facing the Angling Trust at the moment. Why should canoeists be forced to pay for a license which gives them access to less than 2% of our inland waterways? And what makes you think that because freshwater anglers pay for a rod a license, that should then give them right to exclude other user groups from our rivers?

 

Sure, you can ignore the issue, or pretend that the dissent doesn't exist by trying to silence opposing points of view, but neither of those courses of action will make it go away.

[Leon Roskilly]

And what makes you think that because freshwater anglers pay for a rod a license, that should then give them right to exclude other user groups from our rivers?

 

Ah! I think that I see the misconception that lies at the bottom of this.

 

 

In England and Wales, freshwater anglers pay for a national rod-licence that gives them the right to use a fishing rod where ever they have a right to fish.

 

 

That's all, the right to use a fishing rod where they have explicit permission to fish, not the right to fish anywhere.

 

 

If they want to fish a river, they have to have an arrangement with the riparian owner(s) along the river.

 

 

That is usually through an angling club or syndicate whose members only have a right to fish that particular stretch of river (and usually the clubs/syndicates put a lot of time, money and effort into maintaining the fishery and the environment and ecology of the river as well as access and car-parking).

 

 

Where riparian anglers do not allow angling on their land, or where another club has an arrangement with the riparian owner, then having a rod licence gives no right to fish.

 

 

So anglers cannot just go and fish wherever they please, just because they have a national rod licence.

 

 

 

Through their clubs (usually) they have to negotiate with riparian owners (or controlling bodies) and pay a substantial fee on top of the licence for permission (not right) to fish a stretch of river.

 

(Like all other anglers, there are quite a few rivers near to me, but I am unable to access most of the riverbanks to fish (though I would dearly love to), just a couple of stretches controlled by the two clubs I belong too, and some others where I pay a day-ticket to the club or riparian owner (which could be over £300 per day for some decent game fishing! Sadly beyond my means). Most of the local river-banks are out of bounds to me to fish, even though I can often walk the public paths beside them and salivate over what I'm missing).

 

 

Anglers/Angling organisations cannot deny other user groups access to a river. Nor can they endow/deny navigation rights.

 

 

Indeed, if other users make an agreement with riparian owner(s), anglers could equally be denied access in favour of those other interests!

 

 

So, like canoeists, anglers cannot just go along and fish any stretch of river that takes their fancy without the permission of the riparian owner.

 

Canoeists, like anglers, perhaps through local clubs, are able to negotiate with riparian owners/controlling bodies for access, and pay whatever is agreed for that permission.

Edited January 1, 2012 by Leon Roskilly